| Newsgroups |
gmane.mail.im2000 |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:38:20PM -0000, James Craig Burley wrote:
> Though JdBP and Charles Cazabon hand-wave this in different ways
> (JdBP says "if the network is down, you didn't get your email via
> SMTP anyway"; CC says "if the network is down, you can't reach
> your POP box anyway"), the *claim* made by IM2000 proponents is
> that IM2000 recipients *DO NOT PAY* for the sizes of their
> in-boxes, but SMTP recipients *DO*.
As far as I can see, this is not the problem. The problem is the cost
of maintaining the network connection. In case of IM2000, it seems
the recipient needs to maintain network connection while he is trying
to decide which email actually to see.
In Eastern Europe, this is a cost people would not tolerate. For
example, my mother automatically discards messages greater than
30K---so your 65K message would have never made it to her mailbox.
Mate
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html